5 ms·
Another Chomsky example has used frequently is pulling a child by the arm out of the street. It's violence, and it's moral certainty is debatable depending on
by proksoup 13y ago
Another Chomsky example has used frequently is pulling a child by the arm out of the street.
It's violence, and it's moral certainty is debatable depending on the specific context.
- maaku 13y agoHow is yanking a child's arm not less violent than getting run over by a bus? Being against violence means wanting to minimize the amount of violence in the world, no? It's a strange strawman to say that being against violence means never taking any forceful action whatsoever - that just leads to violent outcomes through inaction.
- corin_ 13y agoSure , but that's the entire debate. In that example it's easy, of course you'd rather cause a child a little discomfort rather than let them get run over. But what about more serious examples? Would you support the people behind 9/11 if it lead to less deaths overall over an X year period? If yes, would everyone? It's easy to make your decision when the potential downside (a child cries for 5 minutes) is so minor and the potential upside (a child gets saved from dying) is so much bigger in comparison - it only becomes an interesting debate when you up the stakes considerably. For example, the debate about whether what Mandela did, back in his "terrorrist" days, was justified.
- meowface 13y agoYou can't compare "minor violence against one person vs. extreme violence against one person", and "extreme violence against one/a few people vs. extreme violence against numerous people." Can anyone think of a terroristic act that resulted in one or more deaths actually leading to less net violence? Most seem to cause more violence: Dorner shooting police, causing police to open fire on civilians they thought were him. 9/11 leading to many innocent deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. People are much more likely to respond to violence with violence, than they are to respond with it to peace.
- dsuth 13y agoThat is not the entire debate. Pacifism and non-violence are not the same as inaction. It's a question of intent. It's indisputable that yanking a child's arm to remove them from danger is NOT violence, because the intent is one of protection.
- Crito 13y agoAdding to your point, here is another example: Would you assert that the people on United Airlines Flight 93 should have practiced non-violent resistance when the intent of their hijackers became clear? Their use of violence against the hijackers was not pacifist, and because they were not pacifists many lives, arguably countless lives, were spared.
- meowface 13y agoThey did it out of self-defense (and also general defense). Violence from self-defense is completely different from retaliatory and/or "message-sending" violence.
- Crito 13y agoSure. I agree. Violence for self-defense isn't pacifism though. Pacifism is not "only use violence when it is justified". That you recognize that violence can be justified (for instance, in self-defense) means that you're not a pacifist. That is okay, most people are not. The author asserts that violence used to prevent additional violence is illogical. You and I both recognize that as false, as both you and I recognize the value that violence can have when it is used for self-defense.
- IgorPartola 13y agoBoth you and your parent comment are incorrect. Self-defense vs first strike becomes a gradient very quickly. And the biggest issue is that the person interpreting what happened is usually the one that used the violence. But back to the main point, there is a world of difference between "self-defense" and "violence used to prevent additional violence". Self-defense is immediate: someone is punching you, so you punch back. The other thing... it doesn't have to be. In my mind, self-defense is justified. But self-defense is defined as "have no other reasonable option", and thus is fairly narrow. If you can negotiate, if you can protect your interests by deterring the enemy, if you can eliminate the enemy without violence, by say sanctions, etc. then you have options and it's not self-defense. Also, self-defense is not the condition where violence is the best option. It's only self-defense when violence is the only option. Perhaps violence is justified when it's not self-defense, but I don't think you can call any first-strike "self-defense" in order to gain the high moral ground.
- EGreg 13y agohttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- enriquepablo 13y agoI think that you should discriminate between "violence" in Physics and "violence" in Ethics.
- gcb0 13y agoWhy? it seems to be just a matter of scale.
- icegreentea 13y agoWell, if you agree that physical violence is application non-consensual force, then it works out fine, since then any force applied without warning is an violent act. I think its a fine definition of violence, IF you accept that violence is sometimes necessary (I think most people hold this view), or even that violence may not be inherently wrong (really a logical extension of the first... but I feel that less people would say they agree with this view).
- CatMtKing 13y agoUm, I think of violence as application of force to cause lasting or permanent injury or death.
- entropy_ 13y agoSlapping someone in the face is definitely a violent act, in most cases though, it won't cause any lasting or permanent injury and definitely not death(unless you are the hulk or something).
- maaku 13y agoNon-consensual force is enslavement, not violence. In my view any reasonable definition of violence has to involve injury of some kind.